BoyBrumby
Englishman
Meanwhile Hansen literally asks a reporter to step outside.
Was that the one who had asked whether the ABs lacked motivation before the game? I thought Hansen's patience in the face of some of the questioning was positively saintly.Meanwhile Hansen literally asks a reporter to step outside.
Generations from now they will still be talking about some of those tackles. The All Blacks’ grandchildren will still be telling their kids to behave or else Sam Underhill will come and get them.
it's not a war dance. just read the ****ing words ffs.A qualm I have with the Haka is opposition fans cheering it. It's a ****ing war dance aimed at your team. Show some defiance you stupid *****.
He was a bit iffy for mine. Owens is a bit too fond of giving players a talking to (how many 'final warnings' did he give out with no card?), and I think he missed two pretty obvious forward passes. Apart from that he did have a good game tbf. I'm liking this recent trend of refs telling TMOs what's what.Also think Nigel Owens did a fantastic job.
neither haka are even close to being about war.there are a wide range of haka. it's employed in various situations in maori culture. the main body of the ka mate we all know and love is not a war challenge
'Tis death! 'tis death! (or: I may die) ’Tis life! ‘tis life! (or: I may live)
’Tis death! ‘tis death! ’Tis life! ‘tis life!
This is the hairy man
Who summons the sun and makes it shine
A step upward, another step upward!
A step upward, another... the Sun shines!
kapa o pango could be interpreted as such i suppose, but it's so all blacks specific that you couldn't really take it seriously as a war haka
You mean the Adam Goodes AFL spear thing s few years back or something more recent?Was bizarre reading those weirdo racist Aussies getting triggered because some league player pretended to throw a spear.
Presumably it didn't count as an actual pass, since it was obviously entirely unintentional that he dropped the ball.A minor question re. refereeing: for England's second disallowed try, where they had the ball in the maul but lost it forward - shouldn't that have been a penalty for offside rather than a scrum for lost forward? The guy at the back loses the ball forward and the man in front of him catches it - isn't he in an offside position since the ball has left the player's hands?
Doesn't matter, surely? There's no differentiation between an intentional pass and non-intentional one in any other context. There's accidental offside that gets called sometimes, but I'm not entirely sure on the rules on that, and if a player in front of the ball catches it after it goes forward that's not exactly accidental.Presumably it didn't count as an actual pass, since it was obviously entirely unintentional that he dropped the ball.
Yeah but then it would be treated as an unintentional forward pass, i.e. a knock-on.Doesn't matter, surely? There's no differentiation between an intentional pass and non-intentional one in any other context. There's accidental offside that gets called sometimes, but I'm not entirely sure on the rules on that, and if a player in front of the ball catches it after it goes forward that's not exactly accidental.
Yeah but the guy who caught it was in front of the player who dropped it i.e the maul is over once it leaves his hands, so the guy in front is now in an offside position and plays the ball. So you play the offside, not the forward pass. In the same way that if you have a ruck and then the halfback passes to an attacker who's starting ahead of the ruck, you play the offside not the forward pass.Yeah but then it would be treated as an unintentional forward pass, i.e. a knock-on.